Informal learning in "Performative" times: Insights from empirical research on Canadian teachers' work and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper makes two contributions. First, it develops a typology of “informal learning” that illuminates the different discourses of the hidden, yet important (as well as problematic), orientations to informal learning. This typology is then used to deepen analyses of teachers’ workplace “informal learning” derived from a 10-year empirical study on Canadian teachers’ work and learning. Three main themes are identified: the difficulty of differentiating informal and formal learning at the empirical level; the limitations of the research methods used to illuminate more tacit levels of learning; and the challenges to collaborative learning under the continued institutional rigidity of schooling. Additionally, under present conditions of work intensification, a significant portion of teachers’ informal learning is reactive rather than deliberative. The paper suggests that although it may be seductive for some teachers, or even necessary for teachers without secure positions, to take up the subject position of “empowered lifelong learner”, this move cannot be assumed to represent increased autonomy. Résumé Cet article est doublement utile. D’abord, il établit une typologie de «l’apprentissage non formel» qui fait ressortir les différents discours sur les orientations tacites, mais tout de même importantes (et problématiques) dans ce domaine. Cette typologie sert par la suite de base à une analyse plus approfondie de «l’apprentissage non formel» des enseignants à partir d’une étude canadienne sur le travail et le perfectionnement professionnel des enseignants, qui a duré 10 ans. L’article identifie trois thématiques : la difficulté inhérente à distinguer l’apprentissage formel de l’apprentissage non formel sur le plan pratique; les limites des méthodes de recherche utilisées dans l’identification de niveaux d’apprentissage moins évidents; et les défis liés à l’apprentissage coopératif dans le contexte de rigidité institutionnelle constante de l’école. De surcroît, à une époque d’intensification du travail, bon nombre d’enseignants optent pour l’apprentissage informel par obligation plutôt que par choix. L’article suggère enfin que même s’il peut être séduisant pour certains enseignants, ou même essentiel pour les enseignants sans assignation permanente d’opter pour l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie, cela ne signifie toutefois une plus grande autonomie.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".